From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q94McAON231593 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:38:10 -0500 Received: from Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org (ishtar.tlinx.org [173.164.175.65]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id YKNXgxTOCu7Ux6oH (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.12] (Athenae [192.168.3.12]) by Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org (8.14.5/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q94MdWKR024102 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:39:35 -0700 Message-ID: <506E1025.8050605@tlinx.org> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:39:33 -0700 From: Linda Walsh MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: xfs_freeze same as umount? How is that helpful? References: <506DAB8C.9000601@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs-oss Greg Freemyer wrote: > Conceptually it is typically: > - quiesce system ---- Um... it seems that this is equivalent to being able to umount the disk? When I tried xfs_freeze / fs_freeze got fs-busy -- same as I would if I tried to umount it. I thought the point of xfs_freeze was to allow it to be brought to a consistent state without unmounting it? Coincidentally, after trying a few freezes, the system froze. Last message in log was 'fetchmail' (that might have been writing a log to /home), had hung for 120 seconds... That was all she wrote before the entire system 'froze'... So shouldn't xfs_freeze work without having to to shut down every process on it? If not, then how is it different than umount? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs